The Log 

of the Princesa: 

By Estevan Jose Martinez 



What Does It Contribute to Our Knowledge 

of the Nootka Sound 

Controversy? 



By 

HERBERT INGRAM PRIESTLEY 

With the Compliments of the /r»«'- 



^ 



Reprinted from Oregon Historical Quarterly 
Vol. XXI. No 1. 1920 



Portland. Oregon 

The Ivy Pren 

1920 






By Tr«.t 1flfflT 

NOV 22 1920 



THE LOG OF THE PRINCESA BY ESTEVAN 
MARTINEZ. 

What does it contribute to our Knowledge of the Nootka Sound 
Controversy? 

By Herbert Ingram Priestley 

Hubert Howe Bancroft's History of the Northwest Coast 
was published 36 years ago — in 1884. In volume I of that 
work he gives an account of the Nootka Sound Controversy. 
In 1904 Professor William Ray Manning published his ex- 
tensive inquiry into that affair, availing himself of manu- 
script materials in Spain and elsewhere which were inaccessi- 
ble to Bancroft. In one very important particular Manning 
was unable to add to the account by Bancroft. The latter 
says, (p. 212.) "I have not been able to obtain the original 
diaries of the Spanish expedition of 1789; nor has any previous 
writer in English seen them;" Manning quotes this, and says 
(p. 342 note) that Revilla-Gigedo, writing to Valdez, Mexico, 
Dec. 27, 1789, "states that a copy of Martinez' diary is in- 
closed, but a note on a small slip of paper inserted says that the 
diary is not being sent on account of Martinez not having 
sent a duplicate of it. The diary does not appear in the 
bundle, and probably never was sent." 

This diary, or more properly log, of which a copy is now 
in the Bancroft Library of the Academy of Pacific Coast 
History, bears the caption, Diaro de la navegacion que yo el 
alferez de navi'o de Real Armada Don Estevan Josef Martinez, 
boy a executor al puerto de San Lorenzo de Nuca, mandando 
la fragata Princesa, y paquebot San Carlos, de orden de el 
Exmo Senor Don Manuel Antonio Florez, Virey, Governador, 
y Capitan-General de Nueva Espana, en el presente an de 1789. 
The original log is a notebook of 144 pages, with 2 of in- 
troduction. The copy of it, which serves as the basis of this 



paper, was secured from the Depo'sito Hidrogra'fico de Madrid 
by the late Professor Henry Morse Stephens for the Academy 
of Pacific Coast History. An English translation of the copy 
has been made by William L. Schurz, sometime Travelling 
Fellow of the Native Sons of the Golden West. It is of in- 
terest to note what new light the log sheds upon the motives 
and actions of the Spanish commander, as compared with the 
published accounts. 

The first discrepancy between the log and the account by 
Bancroft is seen in the statement from Haswell's Voyage, MS 
in the Bancroft Library, (Northwest Coast, Vol I, p. 213, 
note.) that Martinez told Capt. Gray, when he met the latter 
outside the entrance to Nootka Sound early in May, that he 
had fitted for his voyage at Cadiz, and then, reshipping with 
natives of California, had been to Behring Strait, where he 
had parted from his consort in a gale. The farthest north of 
the 1789 voyage was 50° 26', reached May 2; Haswell prob- 
ably misunderstood Martinez, who must have been describ- 
ing his voyage of 1788, to be speaking of his present under- 
taking. This explains the "strange account" which Bancroft 
says Martinez gave of himself to Gray and later to Douglas. 

On the negative testimony which Dr. Manning adduces 
from Meares' failure to record whether he had left his house 
standing or not when he sailed in 1788 from Nootka for 
Hawaii, the log adds nothing positive, but some negative 
evidence, for Martinez makes no reference of any kind to 
any English establishment, or remnant of one, tho' he does 
make frequent reference to the houses of the natives, which 
he visited. If any foreign building had been there, he would 
have seen it, and would very probably have mentioned it. 

The story of the log which narrates the controversy over 
the instructions under which the Iphigenia sailed, is, that 
these were submitted to Martinez on May 8, when requested, 
but being long, they were left with him to be copied. It was 
not until May 13 that Martinez seized the Iphigenia, and on 



the 17th he obtained the bond of Viana and Douglas to sur- 
render the Iphigenia if the Viceroy should declare her a good 
prize. The reason for releasing the vessel Martinez gives : 
it is his lack of men and provisions to take the captured vessel 
to San Bias and at the same time secure Nootka. By May 
24, he says, "I have reflected thoroughly that a different con-\ 
struction could be placed upon the instructions which were 
presented to me on the 8th inst, by . . . Viana, . . . 
they being written in Portuguese, of which no one in our,/ 
ship is master." The Iphigenia was released on May 25, 
after its officers had been admonished to cease trading at 
Nootka. It is apparent from the above that Manning's criticism 
(p. 320) that Martinez was silent as to his real reason for 
releasing the Iphigenia will have to be modified by the log 
entry for May 24, above cited. 

As to the moot question of the quantity of supplies restored 
to Douglas, the diary gives no information in detail, except 
to say that on May 31, just before she sailed, the vessel re- 
ceived "the artillery, balls, powder, and other stores with 
which she had been fitted," and that the provisions which he 
furnished her were intended to last for the voyage to the 
Sandwich Islands. They must have been ample for this, as 
the Iphigenia spent a month on the coast before departing for 
Hawaii, as Manning notes. 

Concerning the plea recorded by Douglas, made to Martinez, 
that he had entered Nootka in distress, Martinez says not a 
word, tho ; he does give a circumstantial account (May 8) of 
the reasons given by Kendrick for entering. Neither is there 
any hint in\ the log that there was unusual objection by the 
English to the treatment which they received as prisoners. It 
is regrettable also that neither the first nor the second transla- 
tions of the instructions to Viana are in the log, as from them 
might be gathered some knowledge as to what frankness 
Martinez showed in his effort to understand the situation. We 
have on this point only the entry of May 24th, above men- 



tioned. Attention may be called also to the fact that Martinez 
does not speak of any attempt to get an order from Douglas 
to Funter requiring him to sell the Northwest America to the 
Spaniard. 

The log account of the reception accorded to the Northwest 
America, Capt. Funter, which put back into Nootka, after a 
northern cruise for pelts, on June 8th, is as follows: ". . . 
As soon as it was within a proper distance, I ordered two 
launches manned, and they towed it inside this port, where 
it cast anchor at 8 :30 at night. The captain and pilot, Robert 
Funter and Thomas Bennett, immediately came to greet me. 
I had them stay to supper, and they returned on board their 
vessel at 11 at night." 

"Tuesday, June 9, 1789, at 7 a. m., I ordered my first pilot, 
Jose Tovar, the carpenter and the calker and the secretary, 
to examine that vessel and make an inventory of whatever she 
contained that was useful and that might be of service. When 
they had done so, they found that the whole bottom of the 
ship was rotten and eaten through by shipworms, and that 
in order to make her serviceable it would be necessary to re- 
build her almost entirely. In view of the report which they 
presented to me, I determined to receive whatever she con- 
tained that was serviceable beside the cargo that she carried. I 
kept ... of all this . . . an inventory, .... 
made at once, and [have it] in my possession. . . . Every- 
thing must remain unsettled until we receive the decision 
. . . of . . . the Viceroy, to whom I will render a 
proper account, to see if this vessel and her contents con- 
stitute a good prize. [This depends on] whether she is 
bound by the instructions which the captain of the Portuguese 
packet Iphigenia presented to me, and whether this ship as 
well as the other belongs to Don Juan Carvalho . . ." In 
this we find no pique at inability to buy the vessel, as Meares 
claimed (Manning, p. 325), which amply justifies his action 
as a partisan of his king. The accounts of Meares, Douglas, 



and Funter were written at dates much later than the log, 
hence ought to be of less credibility. 

With respect to the arrival of the Princess Royal, Capt. 
Hudson, at Nootka June 15, the log adds to Dr. Manning's 
account the fact that Martinez remained aboard of her out- 
side the Sound on the night of her arrival for the definite 
purpose of preventing her departure before he could learn 
particulars of her voyage and purpose — his act thus being in 
keeping with the sense of his instructions to prevent trade 
with the natives, or surprise to himself. Manning's criticism 
that Martinez was inconsistent in releasing Hudson may be 
explained by the belief of Martinez that Hudson was warned 
that if he was found trading with the natives he would be 
taken prisoner — as transpired upon the reappearance of the 
Princess Royal at a later date. Hudson stated that "he had 
acted in the belief that this port as well as the coast belonged 
to the English crown, as discoveries made by Captain James 
Cook. However, I convinced him . . . that I had an- 
ticipated Cook by three years and eight months ; ... he 
could confirm this by . . . Joseph Ingraham, who had 
noted it in his log from the knowledge which he had gained 
from the Indians of the region." 

In the matter of the seizure of the Argonaut and the arrest 
of Capt. Colnett and his crew, it is to be observed that Manning 
used the report of Martinez to Florez, as well as the accounts 
by Colnett, Gray, Ingraham, and Duffin ; of these latter, only 
the last named was a contemporary account. I shall set forth 
briefly how the log agrees in general with the letter to Florez, 
and what it adds, as well as how the spirit of the Duffin 
account substantiates in many ways the Martinez point of 
view. 

The log is, as was the letter to Florez, quite silent as to 
any pretense of distress on the Spanish vessels as a reason 
why Colnett should enter the port to succor them, tho' it does 
say that it was Martinez who ordered the Argonaut towed 



into port, where it was anchored, against Colnett's wishes, by 
chains between the two Spanish ships, and under the guns of 
the fort. Permission to anchor at Cook's old anchorage was 
refused to Colnett "seeing that this was merely a pretext to 
get away from us so that, secure from harm, he could leave 
with less risk to continue his way, or proceed to some place 
where he could act to better advantage." 

Events of July 3rd, the day of the quarrel between Colnett 
and Martinez, not chronicled by Dr. Manning, and included 
in the log, state that the boatswain reported after daybreak 
that Colnett had "taken his boat before sunrise and had gone 
outside the port and around the hill on which the fort of San 
Miguel is situated. He was apparently reconnoitering the 
fortifications. . . . Soon after he came inside, he made to- 
ward the beach, along which he coasted . . . and ex- 
amined the cooper shop and the forge, . . . [Colnett's 
account of this investigation is that he did these things in 
company with Martinez.] Colnett failed to hoist his colors at 
sunrise, until ordered so to do by Martinez, when he displayed 
"a blue English flag at bow and stern, and at the mainmast, 
instead of a streamer, a broad pennant of the same color with 
a white square in the center. He thus gave me to understand 
. . . that he was an officer of high rank." 

Shortly afterward, Martinez demanded Colnett's passport, 
instructions, and invoice of cargo. Colnett excused himself 
from producing them, on the plea that his chests were in great 
disorder. He was then allowed to drop his anchor, and take 
his time in finding his papers. Martinez accompanied him 
to his vessel. Here it was noted that the cargo of the Argonaut 
contained supplies for expected vessels and material for build- 
ing others. Colnett stated that he came as governor of a 
colony, and gave some account of his plans. 

Having heard these, Martinez told him that he could not 
allow him to carry them out ; then, refusing an invitation to 
supper, he returned to the Princesa. In the afternoon, Colnett 



wrote a friendly note requesting the use of Martinez' launch 
in raising his anchor and setting sail the following morning. 
"I saw then that the reasons which he had given me in the 
morning for not presenting the papers which I had demanded 
were merely pretexts for not showing them, so that he could 
delay until he could find a favorable opportunity to get away." 
Martinez therefore refused assistance until Colnett should 
place the papers in his hands. Colnett then went on board the 
Princesa and showed his passport, but refused to show his 
instructions, which, he said, were addressed to himself alone. 
A moment later, he asserted that he had no instructions other 
than his passport, and demanded an instant reply to his re- 
quest for the Spaniard's launch, that he might set sail at once. 
Being again refused until he should show his instructions, he 
announced his determination to sail at once, "and if I did not 
like it, I might fire at him, for he was not afraid of us. He 
accompanied this talk by placing his hand two or three times 
on his sword, which he wore at his belt, as if to threaten me 
in my own cabin. He added in a loud voice the evil sounding 
and insulting words, 'G — d d d Spaniard.' ... I de- 
cided that if I let him go' free from my deck, I would thereby 
suffer the arms of his Catholic Majesty to be dishonored. 
Many, too, would think that I had failed to act, through fear, 
though I had no reason to be afraid, since I was superior in 
force to Colnett." Then, to avoid a conflict with possible 
loss of life, and for fear Colnett would sail at once to London 
to report, Martinez says, he arrested the Englishman and his 
crew, and took over the ship. 

Thus the log corrects Dr. Manning's statement (p. 334) 
that everything seems to have been harmonious on the morning 
of July 3, for at the outset Colnett began the day by suspicious 
actions and haughty disregard of Martinez' claim to the 
sovereignty of the land. He followed this by an ill-timed 
disclosure of his purposes in Nootka, resorting to patent mis- 
representation in saying that he could not find his papers to 



show them. If it be objected that we are here taking- Martinez' 
testimony in his own cause, it is yet plain that his account 
of the quarrel and arrest in the cabin written at the moment 
have quite as much air of verisimilitude as the accounts of 
the other participants, which were equally partisan, and were 
written later. Notice also Duf fin's letter of July 14 [13], in 
Meares' Voyage, cited by Dr. Manning (p. 336), wherein the 
writer calls attention to Colnett's refusal at Duffin's request, 
to "draw out every particular concerning our being captured. 
. . . His objection is that he has involved himself . . . 
in difficulties that he is not able to extricate himself from. 
. . ." Manning's conjecture is that this refusal was for 
shame of his (Colnett's) insanity; it is quite as reasonable 
to conjecture that it was due to the fact that he had been 
rash in putting himself in a situation where seizure was the 
normal outcome of his actions. It is noticeable that Duffin's 
account, the one written by the only sane English participant, 
exculpates Martinez from the charge of harshness, and puts 
the blame for the situation upon Colnett by implication, in his 
letter in Meares' Voyage, Appendix. 

With regard to the capture of the Princess Royal, Capt. 
Hudson, which returned to Nootka July 13, the log adds to 
Bancroft's account, which merely states the event in a dozen 
words, and to the more detailed narrative of Manning, the 
assertion that when Hudson put off to the shore in his boat 
he was disguised as a common seaman. He was, as the 
English accounts have it also, taken from his boat onto the 
Spanish launch sent to meet him, and disarmed; but his boat 
succeeded in eluding the capturing launch, made off to an 
inlet too narrow for the latter, and attempted to speak to 
Colnett on the captured packet. This, Martinez refused to 
permit, unless the crew should surrender themselves, to be 
taken on board his frigate. (Log pp. 130-131.) "As soon as I 
had descended to my cabin and found Hudson there, I com- 
manded him to write an order directing his sloop to enter the 



harbor. He begged off, saying that he could not give it unless 
he should first see his commander. . . He said furthermore 
that he had a good crew to defend it, with the guns loaded, 
and with orders that if they say any boats approaching, to fire 
on them without letting them draw close. 

"I was cognizant of the order which he had given, and knew 
that there was no way to make him do as I had commanded, 
in spite of the fact that I had given him to understand that 
he was as much my prisoner as were those of the packet. I 
accordingly ordered the pilot Mondofia, in the presence of 
Hudson, to arm the launches and . . . bring the sloop in- 
side. I commanded him that [if the crew fired] he should 
. . . seize her by force, putting the crew to the sword 
without quarter. I also gave Hudson to understand . . . 
that if the crew offered resistance I would have him hanged 
at the yard arm. . . . He [then] wrote out an order to his 
men to surrender." . . . He requested me that before 
the launches should leave, I should send his own boat with 
my men and one of his own, to give the countersign and warn 
them not to fire. When once on board, they would hand over 
the letter. Then, when the launches should arrive, his men 
would surrender without resistance." This was done, and 
the launches took the sloop on the 13th, without resistance. 

The remainder of the log subsequent to the seizures, is con- 
cerned with the details of the Spanish occupation, and with 
contributions to the ethnography and topography of the region, 
gathered from the log of Ingraham and from observation. 
There is, so far as I know, no disagreement as to these features 
of the Nootka occupation. Nor does the log shed any light 
on further happenings in Mexico pursuant to the arrival of the 
seized vessels there. A discrepancy is found between the log 
and published account of Dr. Manning, taken from the report 
of Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, p. 212, — to the effect that 
upon his departure for San Bias Martinez seized two American 
vessels and took them with him. The account of the log is 



that he took only one, the Fair America, commanded by the 
son of Captain Metcalf. Another vessel, . . . young Met- 
calf recognized as his father's, was given chase, but escaped. 

Concerning the manifest favor with which Martinez treated 
Gray and Kendrick, the log says: (entry of Oct. 30) "The 
sloop Washington continued her voyage, not in making dis- 
coveries, as was said, but rather in the collection of furs, 
which is the principal object of the nations;" I might have 
taken [these American vessels] prisoners, but I had no orders 
to do so, and my situation did not permit it. I treated this 
enemy as a friend, I turned over to him 187 skins to be sold 
on my account in Canton, the proceeds to be turned over to 
the Spanish ambassador in Boston for the benefit of the 
Crown. 

"Capt. John Kendrick informed me that he had not yet 
fulfilled his commission, and asked me if he might maintain 
himself on the coast the following year after going to Sand- 
wich and Canton. I told him he might if he carried a Spanish 
passport, as he said he expected to do, and that in that case 
he should buy for me in Macao two ornaments for the mass, 
and seven pairs of boots for the officers of the San Carlos 
and my vessel, but I believe nothing of that will come to pass." 

Dr. Manning says (p. 360) that there is ground for dispute 
as to the justice or injustice of the seizures at Nootka. The 
double character of the Iphigenia he mentions as a "harmless 
trick, meant only to deceive the Celestials." It ought to be 
more difficult to harmonize this judgment with probability, 
seeing that the only Celestials whom it would be profitable to 
deceive were across the Pacific, than to harmonize the act 
of appearing under Portuguese colors with the fact that Spain 
and Portugal were, since the rapprochement during the War 
of American Independence, on more friendly terms with each 
other than was either with England ; hence a Portuguese vessel 
would run less risk on the Northwest Coast than would an 
Englishman. It is to be observed that the instructions to 

10 



Martinez by Florez did not mention the Portuguese at all, 
while they did particularize on the treatment to be accorded to 
English, Russian, and American vessels. The account of the 
quarrel with Colnett would seem to offer evidence that the 
acute situation was caused quite as much by the arrogance of 
Colnett as by misunderstanding on the part of Canizares the 
interpreter. We have not yet a perfectly unbiased account of 
what really did happen at Nootka, nor shall we, in all like- 
lihood, ever have. What we have is another statement of the 
case, by an active, competent, though naturally prejudiced 
participant. The fact that the Martinez diary was a daily 
entry, and that this fair copy of it was made at San Bias, 
before question of the events made by the viceroy could affect 
its purport, make it the best available source on affairs at 
Friendly Cove in the summer of 1789. 



11 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

111 Mil 



017 515 



5 454 1 W 



